final description of the proposed action and alternativesthe proposed action and alternatives will...

Final

Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives for the Environmental Assessment Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard from Louisiana Boulevard to the Gibson Gate

Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

May

2018

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABW Air Base Wing

AFB Air Force Base

AFGSC Air Force Global Strike Command

AT Antiterrorism

BFF Bulk Fuels Facility

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

FCU Federal Credit Union

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOA Notice of Availability

SNL Sandia National Laboratories

UFC Unified Facilities Criteria

US United States

USAF United States Air Force

USFS United States Forest Service

Cover Sheet

Final Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives for the Environmental Assessment Addressing

Realignment of Gibson Boulevard from Louisiana Boulevard to the Gibson Gate at


Responsible Agencies: United States Air Force (USAF), Air Force Global Strike Command, 377th Air Base Wing

Affected Location: Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico

Report Designation: Final Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives for an Environmental Assessment

Abstract: USAF proposes to realign Gibson Boulevard from Louisiana Boulevard to the Gibson Gate at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, because of an increase in security incidents at the Gibson Gate. The current access road is a 5-lane extension of Gibson Boulevard. The Proposed Action would close the extension of Gibson Boulevard east of Louisiana Boulevard and reroute the Gibson Gate ingress/egress access road further south on Louisiana Boulevard. The route to the Gibson Gate would change from a straight roadway to a serpentine roadway.

Under the No Action Alternative, USAF would take no action. Kirtland AFB would not realign access to the Gibson Gate. The No Action Alternative would maintain the current ingress and egress from the Gibson Gate via Gibson and Louisiana Boulevards, which would continue the current safety and security concerns.

This Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives will become Sections 1 and 2 of the Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment will analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative and aid in determining whether a Finding of No Significant Impact can be prepared or an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

Written comments and inquiries regarding this document should be directed by mail to the Kirtland AFB National Environmental Policy Act Program Manager, 377 MSG/CEIEC, 2050 Wyoming Boulevard SE, Suite 116, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico 87117-5270, or by email to [email protected].

Final

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ADDRESSING REALIGNMENT OF GIBSON BOULEVARD FROM LOUISIANA BOULEVARD TO THE GIBSON GATE AT

KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE


MAY 2018

Final DOPAA for the EA Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB TABLE OF CONTENTS

May 2018 | i

Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................... Inside Front Cover Cover Sheet 1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................... 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND KIRTLAND AFB BACKGROUND .................................................. 1-1 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 SCOPE OF THE PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...................................... 1-5

1.4.1 NEPA Compliance Requirements ...................................................................... 1-5 1.4.2 Intergovernmental and Stakeholder Coordination .............................................. 1-6 1.4.3 Public and Agency Review of Draft EA .............................................................. 1-7

1.5 COOPERATING AGENCIES .............................................................................................. 1-7

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 SELECTION STANDARDS ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................ 2-3

2.4.1 Roundabout ....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4.2 Revise Ingress Only ........................................................................................... 2-5

2.5 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ............................................................................ 2-5

3. References ................................................................................................................. 3-1

Final DOPAA for the EA Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB TABLE OF CONTENTS

May 2018 | ii

Figures

1-1. Kirtland AFB Vicinity Map with Land Ownership and Withdrawn Areas .......................... 1-2 2-1. Proposed Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB ......................................... 2-2 2-2. Roundabout Alternative .................................................................................................. 2-4 2-3. Revise Ingress Only Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-6

Tables

1-1. Kirtland AFB Land Ownership ........................................................................................ 1-1 2-1. Summary of Potential Impacts ........................................................................................ 2-5

Appendix

A: Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

Final DOPAA for the EA Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

May 2018 | 1-1

1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1.1 Introduction Due to an increase in security incidents at the Gibson Gate, the United States Air Force (USAF) proposes to realign Gibson Boulevard from Louisiana Boulevard to the Gibson Gate at Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), New Mexico. The current access road is a 5-lane extension of Gibson Boulevard. Kirtland AFB is proposing to close the extension of Gibson Boulevard east of Louisiana Boulevard and shift the access road further south on Louisiana Boulevard. The route to the Gibson Gate would no longer be a straight roadway, but rather a serpentine roadway. This Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives will become Sections 1 and 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA), which will evaluate the potential environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

The EA will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code § 4321 et seq.) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §§ 1500–1508). The USAF is also required to consider USAF NEPA-implementing regulations, 32 CFR § 989, as amended.

1.2 Project Location and Kirtland AFB Background Kirtland AFB is in Bernalillo County, southeast of the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico (see Figure 1-1). The installation encompasses 51,585 acres with elevations that range from 5,200 to almost 8,000 feet above mean sea level. The Manzanita Mountains on its eastern boundary rise to over 10,000 feet (KAFB 2018). The land within the installation is owned by a variety of entities (see Table 1-1). The northwest portion of Kirtland AFB is developed. The remaining portion of the installation is relatively undeveloped and is used for training and testing missions.

Table 1-1. Kirtland AFB Land Ownership

Kirtland AFB Lands Acres USAF Fee Owned 25,612 United States Forest Service (USFS) withdrawn to the Department of Defense (DoD) 15,891 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) withdrawn to DoD 2,549 USAF Total 44,052 Department of Energy (DOE) Fee Owned 2,938 USFS withdrawn to DOE 4,595 DOE Total 7,533

GRAND TOTAL 51,585 Source: KAFB 2012

Surrounding land uses adjacent to Kirtland AFB include the USFS Cibola National Forest to the northeast and east; the Isleta Pueblo Reservation to the south; Bernalillo County developments to the southwest; residential and business areas of the city of Albuquerque to the west and north; and the Albuquerque International Sunport, hereafter referred to as the Sunport, directly to the northwest.


May 2018 | 1-2

Figure 1-1. Kirtland AFB Vicinity Map with Land Ownership and Withdrawn Areas


May 2018 | 1-3

Kirtland AFB was established in the late 1930s as a training installation for the United States (US) Army Air Corps. In January 1941, construction of the Albuquerque Army Air Base began with permanent barracks, warehouses, and a chapel. On 1 April 1941, a single B-18 bomber arrived, marking the official opening of Albuquerque Army Air Base. Troops soon followed and the installation grew rapidly with the involvement of the United States in World War II. The installation served as a training site for aircrews for many of the country’s bomber aircraft, including the B-17, B-18, B-24, and B-29.

In February 1942, Albuquerque Army Air Base was renamed Kirtland Army Air Field in honor of Colonel Roy C. Kirtland, one of the Army’s earliest aviation pioneers. In 1942, the US Army Air Corps established a training depot for aircraft support and logistics to the east of Kirtland Army Air Field, near the original private airport, Oxnard Field. The depot became known as Sandia Base. With the completion of the ground crew training program in 1943, Sandia Base was used as a convalescent center for wounded aircrew members and then as a storage and dismantling facility for war-weary and surplus aircraft as the war ended.

The war years at Kirtland Army Air Field continued to be filled with distinguished records of training entire flight crews for the B-17 and B-24 bombers, and the installation’s three schools of advanced flying, bombardier training, and the multi-engine school operated at full capacity. In February 1945, Kirtland Army Air Field participated in training combat crews for the B-29 Super Fortress, which eventually brought an end to the hostilities with Japan by dropping the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In July 1945, the Los Alamos Laboratory Z-Division was formed to manage the engineering design, production, assembly, and field testing of non-nuclear components of nuclear bombs. In September 1945, the Z-Division transferred its field-testing group to Sandia Base, along with staff from the Army Air Corps’ 509th Composite Group at Wendover Air Base in Utah, to do weapon assembly. The Atomic Energy Commission (now DOE) was created by the US Congress in 1946 as a civilian organization, withdrawing control from the military, with control of atomic energy to include nuclear research and development. In 1948, under the Atomic Energy Commission, the Z-Division was renamed Sandia Laboratory (now Sandia National Laboratories [SNL]) and became a separate branch from the Los Alamos Laboratory. Both labs were born out of America’s World War II atomic bomb development effort, the Manhattan Project. Although several military and civilian organizations occupied Sandia Base during this time, the history of the installation is intimately tied to the history of SNL. The US Congress designated Sandia Laboratory as a National Laboratory in 1979.

In February 1946, Kirtland Army Air Field was placed under the Air Materiel Command and its flying and training activities terminated. Its new mission entailed flight test activities for Sandia Laboratory, development of aircraft modifications for weapons delivery, and characterizing nuclear weapon ballistics. In 1947, the US Army Air Corps became the USAF, and Kirtland Army Air Field was renamed Kirtland AFB. In 1949, the USAF established its own Special Weapons Center and testing laboratory at Kirtland Field near Sandia Base, which eventually became Phillips Laboratory and subsequently the Air Force Weapons Laboratory (now the Air Force Research Laboratory). A majority of the test and evaluation activities were conducted on a 46,000-acre tract in the Manzano Mountains, referred to as the New Mexico Proving Ground, on the


May 2018 | 1-4

southern portion of the installation, which includes USFS lands withdrawn for DoD and DOE research, testing, and development activities. The establishment of these activities at Kirtland AFB was considered ideal due to its proximity to the Los Alamos Laboratory and Sandia Base.

The late 1940s and 1950s were expansion years as Kirtland AFB and Sandia Base played increasing roles in the nation’s defense efforts. New buildings, hangars, and the east-west runway, which is now owned by the city of Albuquerque, were constructed. During this period, air defense, weather, and atomic test squadrons operated from Kirtland AFB, and personnel from both installations took part in 12 nuclear test series conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission in Nevada and the Pacific. In 1958, efforts were underway between the United States and the Soviet Union to agree on a moratorium for atmospheric nuclear testing. The anticipated limitations on determining weapons effects inspired efforts by the Special Weapons Center and Sandia Laboratory to develop methods of simulating nuclear effects with non-nuclear techniques. The Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed with the Soviet Union in late 1962, prohibiting nuclear testing in the atmosphere and space, as well as under water.

In 1971, Kirtland AFB and its adjoining military neighbors to the east, Sandia and Manzano Army Bases, were merged to form what is known as Kirtland AFB. On 1 January 1993, Kirtland AFB changed hands to the newly formed Air Force Materiel Command where it remained until 1 October 2015, when it was transferred to the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC). Kirtland AFB is adjacent to the Sunport, which is a joint-use civilian airport with runways serving civilian, military, and other government aircraft. Under the terms of a joint-use lease, the 377th Air Base Wing (ABW) provides fire protection (including crash and rescue) for the Sunport.

Kirtland AFB is the sixth largest installation in the USAF. It is operated by 377 ABW, a unit of AFGSC’s 20th Air Force and the host unit at Kirtland AFB. Missions at Kirtland AFB fall into four major categories: research, development, and testing; readiness and training; munitions maintenance; and support to installation operations for more than 100 mission partners. The primary mission of 377 ABW is to execute nuclear, readiness, and support operations for American airpower. Kirtland AFB is a center for research, development, and testing of nonconventional weapons, space and missile technology, laser warfare, and much more. Organizations involved in these activities include the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, Space and Missile Systems Center, Air Force Inspection Agency, Air Force Safety Center, Air Force Research Laboratory, DOE, and SNL.

In addition, 377 ABW ensures readiness and training of airmen for worldwide duty and operates the airfield for present and future USAF operations, prepares personnel to deploy worldwide on a moment’s notice, and keeps the installation secure. Mission partners involved in these activities include the 58th Special Operations Wing, 150th Special Operations Wing (New Mexico Air National Guard), and the USAF Pararescue School.

1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to better control accidental or inadvertent access to the installation via Gibson Gate by unauthorized individuals. The Proposed Action is needed because of an increase in security incidents at the Gibson Gate.


May 2018 | 1-5

1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment The scope of the EA will include the actions proposed; alternatives considered; a description of the existing environment; and direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. The scope of the Proposed Action and the range of alternatives to be considered are presented in Section 2. USAF NEPA-implementing regulations, 32 CFR § 989 (as amended), require consideration of the No Action Alternative, which will be analyzed to provide the baseline against which the environmental impacts of implementing the range of alternatives addressed can be compared. The EA will identify appropriate measures that are not already included in the Proposed Action or alternatives in order to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse environmental impacts.

The EA will identify the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on affected resource areas. Per CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1501.7[a][3]), only those resource areas that apply to the Proposed Action and alternatives will be analyzed. The following resource areas will be analyzed and discussed for potential impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative: Airspace Management, Noise, Land Use, Visual Resources, Air Quality, Water Resources, Geological Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Infrastructure, Hazardous Materials and Wastes, Safety, and Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice.

1.4.1 NEPA Compliance Requirements

NEPA is a federal law requiring the analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with proposed federal actions before the actions are taken. The intent of NEPA is to make decisions informed by potential environmental consequences and take actions to protect, restore, or enhance the environment. NEPA established the CEQ, which is responsible for ensuring federal agency compliance with NEPA. CEQ regulations mandate all federal agencies use a prescribed approach to environmental impact analysis. The approach includes an evaluation of the potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed action and considers alternative courses of action.

The process for implementing NEPA is outlined in 40 CFR §§ 1500–1508, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. These CEQ regulations specify that an EA be prepared to determine whether a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate or if preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary. An EA considers the effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) of a proposed action on the human environment. It uses a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to evaluate a proposed action and possible alternatives and must disclose all considerations to the public. An EA can aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is unnecessary and facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is required.

USAF regulations under 32 CFR § 989 provide procedures for environmental impact analysis for the USAF to comply with NEPA and CEQ NEPA regulations. Air Force Policy Directive 32-70, Environmental Quality, states the USAF will comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, including NEPA. If significant impacts are predicted under NEPA, the USAF would decide whether to conduct mitigation to reduce impacts below the level of significance, prepare an EIS, or abandon the Proposed Action. The EA would also be used to


May 2018 | 1-6

guide the USAF in implementing the Proposed Action in a manner consistent with USAF standards for environmental stewardship should the Proposed Action be approved for implementation.

1.4.2 Intergovernmental and Stakeholder Coordination

NEPA requirements help ensure environmental information is made available to the public during the decision-making process and prior to an action’s implementation. A premise of NEPA is that the quality of federal decisions will be enhanced if the public is involved in the planning process. Executive Order (EO) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, as amended by EO 12416, requires federal agencies to provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials of state and local governments that would be directly affected by a federal proposal. In compliance with NEPA, Kirtland AFB will notify relevant stakeholders about the Proposed Action and alternatives (see Appendix A for stakeholder coordination materials). The notification process will provide these stakeholders the opportunity to cooperate with Kirtland AFB and provide comments on the Proposed Action and alternatives.

Per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR § 17), including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, findings of effect and a request for concurrence will be transmitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Correspondence regarding the findings and concurrence and resolution of any adverse effect will be included in Appendix A.

EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, directs federal agencies to coordinate and consult with Native American tribal governments whose interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on federally administered lands. Consistent with that EO; DoD Instruction 4710.02, DoD Interactions with Federally-Recognized Tribes; and Air Force Instruction 90-2002, Air Force Interactions with Federally-Recognized Tribes, federally recognized tribes that are historically affiliated with the Kirtland AFB geographic region will be invited to consult on all proposed undertakings that potentially affect properties of cultural, historical, or religious significance to the tribes. The tribal consultation process is distinct from NEPA consultation or the intergovernmental coordination process, and it requires separate consultation with all relevant tribes. The timelines for tribal consultation are also distinct from those of other consultations. The Kirtland AFB point-of-contact for Native American tribes is the Installation Commander. The Native American tribal governments to be coordinated or consulted with regarding the Proposed Action will be listed in Appendix A along with all USAF correspondence. Comments received from the various stakeholders and Native American tribes will be considered during preparation of the EA and included in Appendix A.

Scoping letters will be provided to relevant federal, state, and local agencies and Native American tribes notifying them that the USAF is preparing an EA to evaluate the proposal to realign Gibson Boulevard from Louisiana Boulevard to the Gibson Gate. The agencies and tribes will be requested to provide information regarding impacts of the Proposed Action on the natural environment or other environmental aspects that they feel should be included and considered in the preparation of the EA.


May 2018 | 1-7

1.4.3 Public and Agency Review of Draft EA

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EA will be published in the Albuquerque Journal announcing the availability of the Draft EA. The publication of the NOA will initiate a 30-day review period. A copy of the Draft EA will be made available for review at the San Pedro Public Library at 5600 Trumbull Avenue SE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108. A copy of the Draft EA will also be made available for review online at http://www.kirtland.af.mil under the Environment Information tab. At the closing of the public review period, applicable comments from the general public and interagency and intergovernmental coordination/consultation will be incorporated into the analysis of potential environmental impacts performed as part of the EA, where applicable, and included in Appendix A of the Final EA.

1.5 Cooperating Agencies In accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1508.5), a cooperating agency may be any federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental impacts expected from a proposal. An agency’s jurisdiction by law (40 CFR § 1508.15) refers to an agency’s authority to approve, veto, or finance all or part of a proposal. An agency’s special expertise (40 CFR § 1508.26) refers to its statutory responsibility, agency mission, or program experience. Responsibilities of a cooperating agency (40 CFR § 1501.6b) include early participation in the NEPA process; developing information and preparing portions of the EA for which the cooperating agency has special expertise, at the request of the lead agency; and providing staff support to enhance the lead agency’s interdisciplinary capability. USAF has invited the participation of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the city of Albuquerque Planning Department in the preparation of the EA. The city of Albuquerque Planning Department has agreed to be a Cooperating Agency. Correspondence between Kirtland AFB and the Cooperating Agencies are included in Appendix A.


May 2018 | 1-8

This page intentionally left blank.

Final DOPAA for the EA Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

May 2018 | 2-1

2. Proposed Action and Alternatives As discussed in Section 1.4.1, the NEPA process provides for an evaluation of potential environmental consequences associated with a proposed action and considers alternative courses of action. Reasonable alternatives must satisfy the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, as defined in Section 1.3. In addition, CEQ guidance recommends the inclusion of a No Action Alternative against which potential impacts can be compared. While the No Action Alternative would not satisfy the purpose of or need for the Proposed Action, it is analyzed in detail in accordance with USAF NEPA-implementing regulations (32 CFR § 989, as amended).

2.1 Proposed Action The USAF proposes to realign Gibson Boulevard from Louisiana Boulevard to the Gibson Gate at Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, because of an increase in security incidents at the Gibson Gate. The current access road is a 5-lane extension of Gibson Boulevard. As presented in Figure 2-1, Kirtland AFB is proposing to close the extension of Gibson Boulevard east of Louisiana Boulevard and reroute the Gibson Gate ingress/egress routes further south on Louisiana Boulevard. A median brake would be constructed to allow traffic exiting Kirtland Federal Credit Union (FCU) along Louisiana Boulevard full-movement to proceed north or south onto Louisiana Boulevard. The route to the Gibson Gate from Louisiana Boulevard would no longer be a straight roadway, but rather a serpentine roadway. Design of the roadway would take into consideration the Bulk Fuels Facility (BFF) influent conveyance lines located underneath the proposed roadway realignment. The design would demonstrate an engineered solution that would be protective of the BFF influent conveyance lines and prevent the possibility of any potential damage to these lines.

2.2 Selection Standards In accordance with 32 CFR § 989.8(c), the development of selection standards is an effective mechanism for the identification, comparison, and evaluation of reasonable alternatives. The following selection standards were developed to be consistent with the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action and to address pertinent mission, environmental, safety, and health factors. The following selection standards are used to identify reasonable alternatives for analysis in the EA:

• Meet current criteria/scope specified in: o Air Force Manual 32-1017, DoD Transportation Engineering Program o Air Force Instruction 10-245, Antiterrorism (AT) o Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-010-01, DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards

for Buildings o UFC 4-022-01, Entry Control Facilities Access Control Points.

• Increase security and ensure installation and security forces personnel safety. o Incorporate traffic calming and AT/force protection measures.

• Result in no adverse impact on BFF influent conveyance lines for the BFF treatment system.

• Be compatible with future development needs identified in Kirtland AFB’s 2016 Installation Development Plan.


May 2018 | 2-2

Figure 2-1. Proposed Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB


May 2018 | 2-3

• Result in no adverse impacts on adjacent communities and properties: o Albuquerque Public School District’s Wherry Elementary on Gibson Boulevard

between Louisiana Boulevard and the Gibson Gate o Kirtland FCU access driveway on Louisiana Boulevard o Residential subdivision west of Louisiana Boulevard.

• Result in no adverse impacts on the previously approved Louisiana-Gibson Regional Drainage Facility.

• Maximize the flow of traffic without compromising safety and security or result in undue delays that may affect installation operations or off-installation roadways.

• Avoid environmental resources such as protected plant or animal species or their habitat, known cultural resources, and restoration sites.

2.3 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the USAF would take no action. Kirtland AFB would not realign Gibson Boulevard from the Gibson Gate to Louisiana Boulevard. The No Action Alternative would maintain the current ingress and egress from the Gibson Gate and safety and security issues would continue.

The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action as described in Section 1.3; however, the USAF Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR § 989.8[d]) requires consideration of the No Action Alternative. In addition, CEQ guidance recommends inclusion of the No Action Alternative in an EA to assess any environmental consequences that may occur if the Proposed Action is not implemented. Therefore, this alternative will be carried forward for detailed analysis in the EA. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which the Proposed Action can be compared.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis

Alternative realignment layouts were considered for some of the components of the Proposed Action; however, after considering the purpose of and need for the action, applying the selection standards, and opposition received during public meetings, these alternatives were not considered viable alternatives.

2.4.1 Roundabout

As presented in Figure 2-2, this alternative includes construction of a single-lane roundabout south of the Kirtland FCU on Louisiana Boulevard, approximately 900 feet south of Gibson Boulevard. This single-lane roundabout would provide ingress only to the Gibson Gate. Egress from the gate would continue to utilize the existing westbound lanes of Gibson Boulevard. Traffic exiting Kirtland FCU from the current exit along Louisiana Boulevard would be restricted to right- in/right-out only, requiring the use of the roundabout for northbound traffic (Lee Engineering 2018). Placing a roundabout at this location would result in the potential for traffic from adjacent residential areas to be impacted and queued with traffic accessing the installation or Wherry


May 2018 | 2-4

Figure 2-2. Roundabout Alternative


May 2018 | 2-5

Elementary during peak travel times. Maintaining the current egress route would continue to leave Kirtland AFB susceptible to accidental or inadvertent access to the installation, which would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action or the selection standards identified in Section 2.2. Additionally, this alternative would result in a safety concern from the potential for a catastrophic accident (i.e., head-on collision) caused by a wrong-way driver attempting to continue east on Gibson Boulevard past Louisiana Boulevard. Therefore, this alternative will not be carried forward for analysis in the EA.

2.4.2 Revise Ingress Only

As presented in Figure 2-3, this alternative includes construction of an ingress-only access road to the Gibson Gate from a T-intersection on Louisiana Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Gibson Boulevard. Egress from the gate would continue to utilize the existing westbound lanes of Gibson Boulevard. Traffic exiting Kirtland FCU from the current exit along Louisiana Boulevard would be restricted to right-in/right-out only and a new, full-movement exit from Kirtland FCU would be constructed south of the current driveway on Louisiana Boulevard (Lee Engineering 2018). Maintaining the current egress point would continue to leave Kirtland AFB susceptible to accidental or inadvertent access to the installation, which would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action or the selection standards identified in Section 2.2. Additionally, this alternative would result in a safety concern from the potential for a catastrophic accident (i.e., head-on collision) caused by a wrong-way driver attempting to continue east on Gibson Boulevard past Louisiana Boulevard. Therefore, this alternative will not be carried forward for analysis in the EA.

2.5 Comparative Summary of Impacts Table 2-1 presents a summary of the impacts anticipated under the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.

Table 2-1. Summary of Potential Impacts Affected Resource Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Airspace Management Noise Land Use Visual Resources Air Quality Water Resources Geological Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Infrastructure Hazardous Materials and Wastes Safety Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

[[Preparer’s Note: Resource areas will be analyzed and could be eliminated from detailed analysis in the Preliminary Draft EA. Summary of potential impacts will be complete in the Preliminary Draft EA.]]


May 2018 | 2-6

Figure 2-3. Revise Ingress Only Alternative

Final DOPAA for the EA Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB REFERENCES

May 2018 | 3-1

3. References KAFB 2012 Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB). 2012. Kirtland Air Force Base Real

Estate Management Existing Facilities.

KAFB 2018 KAFB. 2018. US Air Force Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Kirtland Air Force Base Albuquerque, New Mexico. 16 February 2018.

Lee Engineering 2018

Lee Engineering. 2018. Final Technical Memorandum – Gibson Gate Modifications Traffic Study. 2 February 2018.

Final DOPAA for the EA Addressing Realignment of Gibson Boulevard at Kirtland AFB REFERENCES

May 2018 | 3-2

This page intentionally left blank.

A Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

May 2018 | A-1

Federal, State, and Local Agencies – Cooperating Agency Letters

Mr. Tom Church, Cabinet Secretary New Mexico Department of Transportation 1120 Cerrillos Road Santa Fe NM 87504-1149 Mr. David S. Campbell, Director City of Albuquerque Planning Department Plaza del Sol Building 600 Second NW Albuquerque NM 87102

Ms. Heidi King, Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590

May 2018 | A-2

Cooperating Agency Letters

May 2018 | A-3

May 2018 | A-4

May 2018 | A-5

May 2018 | A-6

May 2018 | A-7

AGENCY DISTRIBUTION LIST

Federal, State, and Local Agencies – Scoping Letters Ms. Amy Leuders Southwest Regional Director US Fish & Wildlife Service PO Box 1306 Albuquerque NM 87103-1306 Ms. Priscilla J. Avila Acting Regional Director and Regional Environmental Protection Specialist Bureau of Indian Affairs Southwest Regional Office 1001 Indian School Road NW Albuquerque NM 87104 Ms. Danita Burns, District Manager Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office Albuquerque District Office 100 Sun Avenue NE Pan American Building, Suite 330 Albuquerque NM 87109-4676 Mr. Stephen Spencer Regional Environmental Officer US Department of Interior Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance - Albuquerque Region 1001 Indian School Road NW, Suite 348 Albuquerque NM 87104 Mr. Kelvin L. Solco, Regional Administrator Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth TX 76177-1524 Ms. Pearl Armijo, District Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Albuquerque Service Center 100 Sun Avenue NE, Suite 160 Albuquerque NM 87109 Mr. George Macdonnell, Chief Environmental Resources Section US Army Corps of Engineers 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE Albuquerque NM 87109

Ms. Anne L. Idsal, Regional Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Fountain Pl 12th Floor, Suite 1200 Dallas TX 75202-2733 Ms. Cheryl Prewitt, Regional Environmental Coordinator US Forest Service Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque NM 87102-3407 Ms. Susan Lacy DOE/NNSA Sandia Field Office PO Box 5400 Albuquerque NM 87187 Mr. John Weckerle DOE/NNSA Office of General Counsel PO Box 5400 Albuquerque NM 87187 The Honorable Martin Heinrich US Senate 400 Gold Avenue SW, Suite 1080 Albuquerque NM 87102 The Honorable Tom Udall US Senate 400 Gold Avenue SW, Suite 300 Albuquerque NM 87102 The Honorable Steve Pearce US House of Representatives 3445 Lambros Loop NE Los Lunas NM 87031 The Honorable Michelle Lujan Grisham US House of Representatives 400 Gold Avenue SW, Suite 680 Albuquerque NM 87102

May 2018 | A-8

The Honorable Ben R. Luján US House of Representatives 1611 Calle Lorca, Suite A Santa Fe NM 87505 Dr. Jeff Pappas, PhD State Historic Preservation Officer and Director New Mexico Historic Preservation Division Department of Cultural Affairs Bataan Memorial Building 407 Galisteo Street, Suite 236 Santa Fe NM 87501 Mr. Aubrey Dunn Commissioner of Public Lands New Mexico State Land Office 310 Old Santa Fe Trail Santa Fe NM 87501 Mr. Matt Wunder, Chief Conservation Services New Mexico Department of Game and Fish PO Box 25112 Santa Fe NM 87504 Ms. Jennifer L. Hower Office of General Counsel & Environmental Policy New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe NM 87505 Mr. Jeff M. Witte, Director/Secretary New Mexico Department of Agriculture 3190 S. Espina Las Cruces NM 88003 Mr. Ken McQueen, Cabinet Secretary New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 1220 South St. Francis Drive Santa Fe NM 87505 Ms. Julie Morgas Baca, Bernalillo County Manager Bernalillo County Manager's Office One Civic Plaza NW, 10th Floor Albuquerque NM 87102

Mr. Clyde Ward, Assistant Commissioner for Commercial Resources New Mexico State Land Office PO Box 1148 Santa Fe NM 87504 Development Management/Department Director Bernalillo County Planning Section 111 Union Square SE, Suite 100 Albuquerque NM 87102 Department Director City of Albuquerque Planning Department PO Box 1293 Albuquerque NM 87103 Board of Directors Mid-Region Council of Governments 809 Copper Avenue NW Albuquerque NM 87102 Ms. Alicia Manzano Interim Director of Communications City of Albuquerque Office of the Mayor PO Box 1293 Albuquerque NM 87103 Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners One Civic Plaza NW, 10th Floor Albuquerque NM 87102 Albuquerque City Councilmembers One Civic Plaza NW, 9th Floor, Suite 9087 Albuquerque NM 87102 Mr. Jerry Lovato, Executive Engineer Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority 2600 Prospect Avenue NE Albuquerque NM 87107

May 2018 | A-9

Native American Tribes – Scoping Letters Governor Kurt Riley Pueblo of Acoma PO Box 309 Acoma Pueblo NM 87034 Governor Dwayne Herrera Pueblo of Cochiti PO Box 70 Cochiti Pueblo NM 87072 Chairman Timothy L. Nuvangyaoma Hopi Tribal Council PO Box 123 Kykotsmovi AZ 86039 Governor J. Robert Benavides Pueblo of Isleta PO Box 1290 Isleta NM 87022 Governor Paul S. Chinana Pueblo of Jemez PO Box 100 Jemez Pueblo NM 87024 President Levi Pesata Jicarilla Apache Nation PO Box 507 Dulce NM 87528 Governor Virgil A. Siow Pueblo of Laguna PO Box 194 Laguna NM 87026 President Arthur “Butch” Blazer Mescalero Apache Tribe PO Box 227 Mescalero NM 88340 Governor Phillip A. Perez Pueblo of Nambe Route 1 Box 117-BB Santa Fe NM 87506 President Russell Begaye Navajo Nation PO Box 7440 Window Rock AZ 86515

Governor Peter Garcia, Jr. Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo PO Box 1099 San Juan Pueblo NM 87566 Governor Craig Quanchello Pueblo of Picuris PO Box 127 Peñasco NM 87553 Governor Joseph M. Talachy Pueblo of Pojoaque 78 Cities of Gold Santa Fe NM 87506 Governor Richard Bernal Pueblo of Sandia 481 Sandia Loop Bernalillo NM 87004 Governor Anthony Ortiz Pueblo of San Felipe PO Box 4339 San Felipe Pueblo NM 87001 Governor Terrence Garcia Pueblo of San Ildefonso 02 Tunyo Po Santa Fe NM 87506 Governor Glenn Tenorio Pueblo of Santa Ana 2 Dove Road Santa Ana Pueblo NM 87004 Governor J. Michael Chavarria Pueblo of Santa Clara PO Box 580 Española NM 87532 Governor Thomas Moquino, Jr. Pueblo of Santo Domingo PO Box 99 Santo Domingo Pueblo NM 87052 Governor Gilbert Suazo, Sr. Pueblo of Taos PO Box 1846 Taos NM 87571

May 2018 | A-10

Governor Frederick Vigil Pueblo of Tesuque Route 42 Box 360-T Santa Fe NM 87506 Chairman Ronnie Lupe White Mountain Apache Tribe PO Box 700 Whiteriver AZ 85941 Governor Carlos Hisa Ysleta del Sur Pueblo 117 S Old Pueblo Road PO Box 17579-Ysleta Station El Paso TX 79907 Governor Anthony Delgarito Pueblo of Zia 135 Capitol Square Drive Zia Pueblo NM 87053-6013

Governor Val R. Panteah, Sr. Pueblo of Zuni PO Box 339 Zuni NM 87327 Chairman Jeff Haozous Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma Route 2, Box 121 Apache OK 73006 Chairman Harold Cuthair Ute Mountain Ute Tribe PO Box JJ Towaoc CO 81334-0248

final description of the proposed action and alternativesthe proposed action and alternatives will...

Documents